The MTA has argued that the ad could incite violence against Jews, but Koeltl rejected that idea.

MTA officials “underestimate the tolerant quality of New Yorkers and overestimate the potential impact of these fleeting advertisements,” he ruled. “Moreover, there is no evidence that seeing one of these advertisements on the back of a bus would be sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore, these ads — offensive as they may be — are still entitled to First Amendment protection.”

The MTA's argument was premised on the idea that people would misunderstand the ad, which is intended to be pro-Israel. The ad comes from Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative.

“What matters is not AFDI’s intent, but how the ad would be interpreted,” [said MTA Security Director Raymond Diaz]. The line “What is yours?” could be considered a “call to violence,” particularly because the CAIR posters it was mocking never appeared in New York....

That ad is upsetting because it reveals a basic truth that slaughtering of Jews Is the required sacrificial worship of Mohammed's deity. And Christians are in the same targeted status as Jews by these insane murder cultists.

Earlier this month the District Court here upheld the previous two rulings in the MBTA's favor.

The court agreed with a judge in US District Court in Boston that the T's ad spaces were not a "public forum" because the authority had crafted a series of rules for determining what ads could say - including a prohibition on ads that "demean or disparage" individuals or groups - and then consistently applied those rules. This is in contrast to other public-transit authorities, with no restrictions or inconsistently applied ones.

I read it as an indictment of Islam, but you have point. It would be read very differently outside New York. You could very plausibly argue it's incitement. I'm inclined to let extreme speech have the benefit of the doubt, but clearly this one tests the line if i does not cross it.

Honestly I think that those already predisposed to this kind of violence have a ridiculously low hair trigger. So low anything can be construed to be incitement. Even though this poster is decidedly imprudent, I have sympathy for the speech in this case. They already hate us and want to kill us (I'm of Jewish descent BTW with a very identifiably Semitic name). I'm disinclined to bend to their will, although granted this is not the best impulse. In charity we (I) should be better - sometimes I don't live up to my ideals. Whenever CAIR is upset I read that as a positive sign.

I attempted a comment earlier, but it seems to have gone into the vapor. This ad is a classic example of the pro-Israel line: antisemitism exists in the world so whatever you do ignore, justify, rationalize, or otherwise make excuses whenever Israeli Jews act in an awful manner (e.g. stealing other people's land).

It would be nice if the journalist would have described the ad better.

You have a picture of 'typical' face covered islamic terrorist. Beside that image is ...

"Killing Jews is the Worship that draws us close to Allah" - Hamas MTV

... and under that is ...

That's His Jihad. What's Yours?

The author of the article was confused about who "Hamas MTV" is and where the quote came from. Which shows they can't use Google. The quote is from a propaganda music videos that Al-Aqsa TV (office Hamas TV) ran.

Exactly my point: 1967 war results in Israeli control. No different than the borders defined by every other county in the world. This war is only different in that it is still ongoing and that the defense won. If you have a point here I totally missed it.

When you decide to militarily occupy a people and steal their land, it tends to generate resistance. If Israel wants to go down that path, fine with me. It's not my country. But the PR campaign the Israelis run against American Jews and gentiles to incessantly paint themselves as the poor benighted victims is rather laughable.

Farmer I get it: so when the Palestinians (and many others) attacked Israel in 1967 and tried to kill them and steal their land did the resistance of the Israeli's generate your sympathy or is this a one way street with you?

I was still swimming around my parents' respective reproductive organs in 1967, so I had no opinion at the time. Israel had the right to repel any attack made against it, and it had the right to sign peace deals with two of the major belligerents. It does not have the right to militarily occupy a people and to allow its religious fanatics to build settlements deep in the west bank.

FarmerWe'll just have to disagree on this one. Rights in the international context are not well defined IMO. Israel is trying to survive another day pure and simple. Occupation is not something anyone would choose if there were better more secure options.

When you place an ad, you have an intended response in mind. Man sees ad, wants product. Man sees ad, has brand name further embedded in his consciousness. Man sees ad, calls number. Man sees ad, visits website. Etc.

There used to be Jews all over the middle east, with communities in Cairo and Baghdad and Tehran.Now they are all pushed into a few miles of Israel proper and some people even begrudge them that much.I wonder all the Christians getting forced out of Maaloula and Mosul can go, maybe a phone booth somewhere in Lebanon.

Going to war, and losing, has consequences. Israel specifically warned the Jordanians not to pile on in '67, almost begged them to stay out of the ground war, but they wouldn't listen.

And now Israel is expected to give East Jerusalem back? Why? Would the Italians give Rome to a non-Catholic occupier? Would the Muslims give Mecca to the Hindus? Why would Isreal ever consider giving East Jerusalem to a "state" run by psychotic Jew-haters?

"Ah, J. Farmer has arrived to provide his daily dose of Hamas propaganda and hatred of the jews."

Right, because if you don't support the actions of Israel, it must mean you hate Jews. Come to think of it, I told an English friend why I disagreed with something England had done. Grr, why didn't he chastise me for my obvious anglophobia and hated of the English?

@Paul:

"The settlements give a buffer to make it harder for the terrorists to infiltrate."

Do you actually believe the Hebron settlers are there for security? Oddly, when I talk to them, they tell me they are there to reclaim the homeland of King David.

@Sparrow:

"Anti Israeli sentiment is not a perfect proxy for antisemitism but it's pretty close."

What if you happen to think what the Israelis are doing are wrong? And I am still waiting to hear from you about how the Hebron settlement increases Israel's security.

Putting that aside, please inform us with your deep knowledge on the subject. Tell me about the Israeli settlers in Hebron and their motivation for moving there.

I can't speak for PMJ, but i do have deep knowledge on the subject. Israeli settlers believe that Jews should be free to live anywhere in the traditional land of Israel, and that having a presence scattered throughout the West Bank provides net defensive benefits as well. (I agree with the first point, I'm not sold on the second.)

There is also a widespread belief that the Palestinian leadership would use statehood, once its been achieved, to further attack Israel.

Oh, my mistake. I'm sure that you have lots and lots of settler friends that you chat away with all the time. I have no doubt that your Hebrew is flawless and the settlers are happy to converse with some retard who would like to seem them slaughtered.

As to the soldiers, the main motivation seems to be to protect civilized people's lives from your heroic pedophile worshipping savages.

However, some may do it simply to hurt the delicate feelings of anti-Semitic assholes like J. Farmer.

In other words, you do not know anything about the settlement or the Israeli civilians that have chosen to settle there, but instead of admitting that, you hurl third-rate juvenile insults in my direction.

"Israeli settlers believe that Jews should be free to live anywhere in the traditional land of Israel"

Sure. But according to PMJ, acknowledging that makes you an "anti-semitic asshole." I must say, I find Americans who demand other Americans demonstrate unquestioning fealty to a foreign power to be utterly bizarre.

Jews live in Hebron to ensure access to the Cave of the Patriarchs. Until 1929, when 57 Jews were killed by an Arab mob who had been told Jews were out to kill as many arabs as possible, Jews had lived in Hebron for centuries.

"The settlements give a buffer to make it harder for the terrorists to infiltrate."

How is this so? That might make more sense if the settlements were confined to a contiguous belt along the border of Israel-proper, with no Arabs within that zone, but the settlements are often isolated outposts unconnected to one another or Israel. If anything, the fact that these settlements need additional Israeli troops to defend them means dispersing resources from border areas.

If the settlements can be defended on other grounds (e.g., the right of Jews to live on that land) then make that case--but it seems from a "defense" perspective they are more a detriment.

"'Palestinian' is a bogus term. They were Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, etc that were abandoned by their countries when Israel won their wars with their countries.

All the land Israel took was theirs by right of winning."

That's true, but the fact remains that Israel currently has hundreds of thousands of these people on land they're controlling and is going to have to figure out what to do with them. Expulsion is not an option, nor is extermination. That leaves some sort of assimilation or coexistence.

"If the settlements can be defended on other grounds (e.g., the right of Jews to live on that land) then make that case--but it seems from a "defense" perspective they are more a detriment."

The problem for Israel is that its case for annexing the pieces of the West Bank that it finds desirable and wants to control would collapse under international scrutiny. So it does a pseudo-annexation and then claims that everything it does is for defensive security purposes, giving a post hoc legitimacy to its activities. We are expected to believe that Israel is uniquely menaced from Islamist terror when activity in places like Sri Lanka clearly show that to be false.

I am aware of Hebron's significance. I made this point to a commenter who insisted that I did not know what I was talking about and that settlements were for security purposes. That is why I put the question to him. It was rhetorical.

We are expected to believe that Israel is uniquely menaced from Islamist terror when activity in places like Sri Lanka clearly show that to be false.

I don't think the threat of Islamist terror has to be unique to warrant a response.

(To the best of my knowledge, the Koran and hadith don't mention the glory of killing Sri Lankans, so maybe there is something unique about Israel vis-a-vis its neighbors. But I don't think it matters.)

Within Israel itself, there is intense debate over the existence of settlements. Add in the success of the Palestinians in convincing the international community that settlements are evil, and you will find that many Israeli leaders don't make the case that Jews have legal rights to the land of Israel including Judea and Samaria.

That's true, but the fact remains that Israel currently has hundreds of thousands of these people on land they're controlling and is going to have to figure out what to do with them. Expulsion is not an option, nor is extermination. That leaves some sort of assimilation or coexistence.

I think you've framed that well. My understanding is that there was substantial (not unanimous, but what is?) Israeli support for reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians (what you call 'coexistance') during the 1990s.

Conceptually, that support is still there, but there's enormous doubt about the Palestinians' (or at least their leaders') willingness to ever live in peace with Israel, based on what Israel has seen and heard from the Palestinian leadership since then.

From the Israeli perspective, the choice isn't between coexistence and occupation, it's between occupation and active, violent hostility. When you only have bad options, you have to choose the one that is least bad.

i guess there's no law against stupidity, but this seems like a stupid ad. "What's yours?" doesn't belong there. Who are they trying to reach with this? Anyone who is capable of responding sympathetically is going to be put off by the implication that we all want to kill Jews in our own way. If you're not a jihadist, this will be offensive; if you are, it will be pointless.

Since the ad does not advocate the killing of Jews but warns against those who would, the speech is protected by the First Amendment. That said, I find it annoying that government entities plaster their facilities with advertising. Here in Southern California, I find it annoying to see MTD buses plastered with ugly Bail Bonds ads, pictures of slimy slip and fall lawyers, and so on. If they can do that, hey, I live next to a busy street, why can't I put a billboard on the roof of my house? But, no, they wouldn't allow that, It would be in bad taste. The fact is that we are drowning in ads and messages and they keep getting more obnoxious as it becomes obvious that we are tuning it ALL out.

Sounds like what Farmer is saying is that ONLY Islam and the "sensitive feelings" of Muslims should be respected. Islam, according to the Qur'an, and the sensitive feelings of Muslims dictate that Islam is supreme and non-Muslims must be subjugated.

That's pretty much at the heart of that AFDI bus ad, to bring public awareness to the reality of the conflict between Israel and Arab Palestinians. The so-called "land dispute" is not really about land, the conflict is the result of the ideological premise, intolerant Islamic supremacism.

If you actually read the history of Hebron you see that Hebron is one of the oldest cities in the world, inhabited by Jews throughout centuries and numerous empires. But that's no longer OK because of the aspirations of the Palestinian people!!

It's absurd that when Muslims restrict access to Jewish holy sites such as those in Hebron and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and when Abbas announces that the Palestinian State will allow no Jews whatsoever, people shrug it off. Muslims are entitled to be bigots. "Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah," after all.

"JackOfClubs said...i guess there's no law against stupidity, but this seems like a stupid ad. "What's yours?" doesn't belong there. Who are they trying to reach with this? Anyone who is capable of responding sympathetically is going to be put off by the implication that we all want to kill Jews in our own way. If you're not a jihadist, this will be offensive; if you are, it will be pointless."

Rejecting the idea your religion supports killing Jews is the reaction they want. The ad is trying to draw a distinction between Islam and Christianity/Judaism, or at least the effect these religions have on their adherents.

Lets put a little different perspective on this. Until Palestinians in Gaza atarted lobbing rockets and sending suicide bombers into Israel they were left pretty much on their own. Palestinian communities elsware in the middle east aren't targeted by Israel unless the attack Israel. However if the only Jews left in the solar system lived on the moon Paleatinians would develop a space program to go and kill them all.Isreal have never threatened to wipe Paleatinians off the face of the earth. The main part of the Palestinian creed is to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

"An ad which is meant to bring clarity to the desire of Muslims worldwide gets turned I to a conversation by J. Farmer about Jews and Israel."

I did not talk "about Jews;" I talked about the actions of the state of Israel and of Israelis. And considering that the ad is specifically designed to be pro-Israel, I don't consider a discussion of Israel to be totally off topic.

"Further, a statement by Obama about blowing people up, in another thread, has J Farmer thinking about possible Republican hypocrisy. "

Again, if you actually read what I read, I was reacting to unhinged comments and was not musing about "possible Republican hypocrisy." I have said over and over that partisan politics are utterly boring and meaningless to me. I don't support "Republicans" or "Democrats," whatever those words are supposed to tell you about someone.

Brando: "Expulsion is not an option, nor is extermination." Most Palestinians disagree with you, and differ only on whether they want to expel every Jew from all of Israel (the "moderates"), or whether the prefer to exterminate them all. Why does only one side have these two options, and why is that side treated by so many people as having the high ground in the argument?

Shame. Shame that after the most costly war in history the world still hasn't learned to live at peace with a tiny religious minority who are as a group talented and productive far beyond the proportion of their numbers. Shame that the philosophical heirs of Adolf Hitler are tolerated and even lionized at universities where Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not. Shame that the mostly harmless Col. Quack was overthrown and replaced by genocidal fanatics just so Hillary could carve a notch on her six-shooter. (Anyone who doesn't know that the whole Libyan debacle was instigated by the Clinton's as preparation for her 2016 campaign does know his ass from a hole in the ground.)

In 2000 the Palestinians rejected a deal that would have given them nearly everything they wanted INCLUDING SHARED CONTROL OF JERUSALEM because they decided they would rather blow up Jews going out for pizza.

The Palestinians are the luckiest motherfuckers in the world to have Jews as enemies because if they pulled that that terrorist/suicide bombing/schoolkid rocketing crap on anyone else they would have been ground to dust like Carthage long ago, *especially* their Arab "brothers". Just look at what their coreligionists are doing to each other in the rest of the ME. Not to mention that they are doing even worse to Christians, and the only reason they aren't doing it to Jews is because Jews have been ethnically cleansed from most of the ME outside Israel. So pardon me if I don't shit my pants over a few Jews living on historically Jewish land.

I second eric's sentiment. The post is about free speech and Islam and it get's diverted to Israel. I contributed top the diversion by not calling it out early - mea culpa Diversions and distractions are classic tactics to avoid the facing truth. Quaestor your comments (as usual) are excellent, especially if rendered while sleep deprived. I appreciate them.

"So pardon me if I don't shit my pants over a few Jews living on historically Jewish land."

In other words, the far-right fanatics who want a Greater Israel must be placated, right? The few hundred Jews who live in the Hebron settlement are protected by Israeli military, who force the tends of thousands of Palestinian occupants (who also have deep histories to the area) live under oppressive conditions, such as lack of use of major roads, restrictions on their movement, and on their business activity. Not to mention the near constant harassment they experience from the settlers. In other words, one set of rules and regulations for the Jews and another for the Arabs. I think call that apartheid. But oh no, better not say that. For some reason, people that advocate discriminator ethno-religious laws get really annoyed when you call them that.

"So pardon me if I don't shit my pants over a few Jews living on historically Jewish land."

In other words, the far-right fanatics who want a Greater Israel must be placated, right? The few hundred Jews who live in the Hebron settlement are protected by Israeli military, who force the tends of thousands of Palestinian occupants (who also have deep histories to the area) live under oppressive conditions, such as lack of use of major roads, restrictions on their movement, and on their business activity. Not to mention the near constant harassment they experience from the settlers. In other words, one set of rules and regulations for the Jews and another for the Arabs. I think call that apartheid. But oh no, better not say that. For some reason, people that advocate discriminator ethno-religious laws get really annoyed when you call them that.

4/24/15, 6:44 AM

Are you purposely ignorant or a partisan hack or both?

As others have noted and you appear to have ignored: a) Palestinian is a relatively new invention created by the other ME countries to keep pressure on Israel. Everyone that lives in the Palestinian "territories" was a citizen of another ME country and they either were refused entry or they refused to return "home". b) The Israelis have repeatedly tried for peace with Palestinian to include releasing prisoners in swaps that have left them more vulnerable. c) If the Palestinians really want peace all they have to do is STOP killing jews. It is NOT that hard. Stop teaching their kids to kill jews, top preaching and promoting the killing of jews and leave the jews alone. d) More Arabs and Muslims live in Israel (and have more rights) than jews live in the rest of the ME. What does THAT tell you? e) The Palestinian "territories" are not completely surrounded by Israel. They also boarder other ME countries. How can Israel blockade an area they don't completely surround? That is right, the other ME countries blockade the territories too. Why is that? Either they are also afraid of the residents of the territories or they are using them as propaganda tools.

Israel has been fighting for its survival from the moment is was formed. Nearly every action they have taken has been to protect themselves from constant attack. How would you act if you were boarded by others who openly preached and practiced killing you? Would you just lay down and die or would you fight back.

Why build a settlement for a few hundred people deep in the West Bank that requires Israeli military protection if security and fear of Muslims was the primary motivating factor in Israel's decision-making?

Why build a settlement for a few hundred people deep in the West Bank that requires Israeli military protection if security and fear of Muslims was the primary motivating factor in Israel's decision-making?

I think it's appropriate for Israel to refuse to have its decisions dictated by Muslim Jew-hatred.

In other words, one set of rules and regulations for the Jews and another for the Arabs. I think call that apartheid. But oh no, better not say that. For some reason, people that advocate discriminator ethno-religious laws get really annoyed when you call them that.

Not really annoyed, just frustrated by the lack of understanding. The difference isn't ethnicity, it's the fact that so many of the Arabs are given to violence, and Israel has the right and obligation to protects its citizens against violence.

Why build a settlement for a few hundred people deep in the West Bank that requires Israeli military protection if security and fear of Muslims was the primary motivating factor in Israel's decision-making?

4/24/15, 8:30 AM

That was never my position or argument.

My answer is, you attack me and I win, I get to do whatever I want with what I win. Don't want me to take your stuff? Don't attack me and lose it. You don't think that if Israel lost those wars that the MEs would have said "thanks for playing and here is your country back"? Hell no. They would have been wiped off of the map. The rest of the ME is LUCKY that Israel does not treat them as they are treated.

"The difference isn't ethnicity, it's the fact that so many of the Arabs are given to violence, and Israel has the right and obligation to protects its citizens against violence."

Again, if protection from violence was the main concern, why send out a few hundred Israelis to live among tens of thousands of Arabs in Hebron? Do you think that when tens of thousands of people have severe restrictions placed on their freedom of movement, including denying them access to one of the major roadways in their city, in order to placate a few hundred settlers (most of whom act in incredibly abusive ways towards the Arabs living there with impunity from the patrolling Israeli soldiers) that that might act to increase resentments and hostilities?

@Todd:

"My answer is, you attack me and I win, I get to do whatever I want with what I win."

So, hypothetically speaking, if Israel decided to cleanse the entire West Bank of its Arab population, would that be okay in your book, since Israel "won?" And by the way, I presume you mean the '67 war. Does it matter to you that about a 1/3 of the population of the west bank is teenage or younger, or that more than half of the entire population was born well after 1967? What about the parts of the West Bank whose control has been ceded to the PA? Is it your position that Israel can renege on that deal anytime it wants and take back control of that land?

"My answer is, you attack me and I win, I get to do whatever I want with what I win."

So, hypothetically speaking, if Israel decided to cleanse the entire West Bank of its Arab population, would that be okay in your book, since Israel "won?" And by the way, I presume you mean the '67 war. Does it matter to you that about a 1/3 of the population of the west bank is teenage or younger, or that more than half of the entire population was born well after 1967? What about the parts of the West Bank whose control has been ceded to the PA? Is it your position that Israel can renege on that deal anytime it wants and take back control of that land?

4/24/15, 9:05 AM

Let us not be stupid, mkay? They already won, they already did not do what you ask so why do you think that they now will? Again, the basic issue is Palestine plans for and actively engages is the killing of Jews. It seems that you don't think that they should be able to protect themselves.

This is all one sided and the only reason that many are picking on Israel is because Israel always wins these confrontations so that they still exist to be picked on. All of the violence can stop at ANY time. Palestine simply has to agree that Israel has a right to exist and Jews have a right to live in peace.

Again, if protection from violence was the main concern, why send out a few hundred Israelis to live among tens of thousands of Arabs in Hebron?

Because rewarding violence is a bad approach. If the Hebron Arabs could be trusted to behaved in a civilized fashion, the fact that some Jews live there wouldn't necessitate all of the inconveniences.

Do you think that when tens of thousands of people have severe restrictions placed on their freedom of movement, including denying them access to one of the major roadways in their city, in order to placate a few hundred settlers (most of whom act in incredibly abusive ways towards the Arabs living there with impunity from the patrolling Israeli soldiers) that that might act to increase resentments and hostilities?

First, it's nowhere near "most" settlers that are abusive. Some is too many, of course, but facts are important, and it's an unpleasant minority that commits the abuse.

Second - yes, Israel's self-defense probably generates some hostility. To my mind, it's beyond obvious that the problems would evaporate if Hebron's Arabs could tolerate the fact that some Jews want to live there.

"Palestine simply has to agree that Israel has a right to exist and Jews have a right to live in peace.

EVERYTHING else is smoke."

No, actually Todd, it's a little bit more complicated than that. I know it's fashionable on this side of the hemisphere to incessantly talk up Israel's security needs, but things like the division of East Jerusalem and the right of return that are actually difficult issues and not just "smoke."

The fact that you could not answer any of the questions I asks should show you how untenable your position is. You defend settlements by saying that because Israel won the 1967 war, it has the right to exercise total authority over the land. Okay, fine. But that land contains a couple million people on it, more than half of whom were born after the 1967 war. Israel exercises control over these people and denies them any right to say anything about it. Living under an occupying military regime does tend to create tensions and hostilities that cannot simply be blamed on irrational hated of Jews.

@Pookie:

"To my mind, it's beyond obvious that the problems would evaporate if Hebron's Arabs could tolerate the fact that some Jews want to live there."

I presume you live in America, but if I am wrong the analogy will still hold. If a group of indigenous Americans show up at your door and tell you that your house happens to have been built on their ancestral homeland, and they will be expelling you from it, bull dozing your house, and building their own house on top of it, where they will live under military protection, while imposing significant restrictions on your ability to travel around your neighborhood. Then somebody tells you that the real problem is you can't tolerate living among a few indigenous Americans and that you are obviously motivated by an irrational hatred for the indigenous population who just want to reclaim their historical homeland.

No, actually Todd, it's a little bit more complicated than that. I know it's fashionable on this side of the hemisphere to incessantly talk up Israel's security needs, but things like the division of East Jerusalem and the right of return that are actually difficult issues and not just "smoke."

The fact that you could not answer any of the questions I asks should show you how untenable your position is. You defend settlements by saying that because Israel won the 1967 war, it has the right to exercise total authority over the land. Okay, fine. But that land contains a couple million people on it, more than half of whom were born after the 1967 war. Israel exercises control over these people and denies them any right to say anything about it. Living under an occupying military regime does tend to create tensions and hostilities that cannot simply be blamed on irrational hated of Jews.

4/24/15, 10:09 AM

Don't be dense. I did address the items addressed to me, you just don't like my answers. Those people are not slaves and they are not hostages (except at the whim of other ME states). They can go somewhere else if they don't like it (unlike say Cubans). They were born there because their parents decided to live there. Israel did NOT cause that.

As to "right of return", that is a false flag. If Israel ever agreed to that, they would cease to exist as Israel within a few years. The entire "right of return" play is to flood Israel with non-jews and as Israel is a real democracy, change Israel from within. I forget, how many other states in the ME are real democracies?

If you really feel for the plight of the Palestinians, push the other ME countries to give them sanctuary. That won't happen though cause the rest of the ME want them to be there.

As someone up stream noted, Israel could move to the moon tomorrow and the day after, the ME would start a space program with the goal of eradicating them. That is how they are raised and until you change THAT, nothing else will change until all of the jews are gone. Simple fact that you just don't want to come to terms with. Again, everything other than ME acceptance of Israel is smoke because their current position is death to all jews.

I presume you live in America, but if I am wrong the analogy will still hold. If a group of indigenous Americans show up at your door and tell you that your house happens to have been built on their ancestral homeland, and they will be expelling you from it, bull dozing your house, and building their own house on top of it, where they will live under military protection, while imposing significant restrictions on your ability to travel around your neighborhood. Then somebody tells you that the real problem is you can't tolerate living among a few indigenous Americans and that you are obviously motivated by an irrational hatred for the indigenous population who just want to reclaim their historical homeland.

Your analogy is very weak. Arabs weren't expelled from their homes in Hebron, and houses weren't bulldozed until those actions were required for basic security, for example when 9-month-old Shalhevet Pass was shot to death across the street from the Cave of the Patriarchs.

In fact, there were Jews living in Hebron for centuries, and there were no travel restrictions or other inconveniences on the Arab population. In 1929, this unmolested and unimpeded Arab population killed dozens of Jews and motivated the rest to flee - the Hebron Arabs' irrational hatred really did mean that they couldn't tolerate a few Jews living there, and had nothing to do with any Israeli military presence.

The reason your analogy fails is that the negative actions you've posited in your analogy (expulsions, bulldozing, military protection) only occurred as a consequence of Hebron Arabs' violence against Jews hoping to live there peacefully.

"I did address the items addressed to me, you just don't like my answers."

No, actually, you did not give me any answers to like or dislike. Let's just recap what I asked...

1. So, hypothetically speaking, if Israel decided to cleanse the entire West Bank of its Arab population, would that be okay in your book, since Israel "won?"

You did not answer it but say that because it hasn't happened (which is why I called it hypothetical), I shouldn't ask it. Since you don't seem to like the question, let me rephrase it. There are Israelis who believe that the West Bank should be annexed and its Arab population expelled. Do you agree with them? Why or why not?

2. Does it matter to you that about a 1/3 of the population of the west bank is teenage or younger, or that more than half of the entire population was born well after 1967?

3. What about the parts of the West Bank whose control has been ceded to the PA? Is it your position that Israel can renege on that deal anytime it wants and take back control of that land?

Those were the old questions you ignored. Let me add a few more. Assume that the Palestinians did everything you said they need to do. What about the final status of Jerusalem? What about the right of return? What about access to holy sites? What about the dozen or so other significant issues that the negotiators on both sides have actually spent considerable time trying to resolve? Do you actually believe those issues are "just smoke?"

"If you really feel for the plight of the Palestinians, push the other ME countries to give them sanctuary. That won't happen though cause the rest of the ME want them to be there."

Beautiful attitude from somebody who wants to make a lot out of Israel's "only democracy." So, obviously, the solution is that if Arab's don't like living under Israeli military subjugation, they should just abandon their homeland of centuries and go move somewhere else.

"Again, everything other than ME acceptance of Israel is smoke because their current position is death to all jews."

How do you know what "their current position" is? How does a geographic region have a position? There are 2.5 million Arabs in the West Bank. If 70% of them gave up on this so called "current position," could they have a state then? 80%? 90%? Okay, very well, if it has to be 100%, what process would you use for determining that this was their "current position?"

Those were the old questions you ignored. Let me add a few more. Assume that the Palestinians did everything you said they need to do. What about the final status of Jerusalem? What about the right of return? What about access to holy sites? What about the dozen or so other significant issues that the negotiators on both sides have actually spent considerable time trying to resolve? Do you actually believe those issues are "just smoke?"

Not to speak for anyone else, but:

1) I think that if Israel can reasonably expect the same sort of peace that it's achieved with Jordan and with Egypt with Palestine, then East Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine.

2) The right of return should be exercised in what will eventually (hopefully) be Palestine.

3) I hope that the Palestinians can emulate the Israeli track record of allowing access to the holy sites of religious minorities. (Currently, that hope seems unrealistic.)

4) Beyond that, most issues can be resolved, but I'm happy to provided my unsolicited opinion if you provide specific questions

I will answer in detail but the general answer is yes CAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL THEM DAILY! How would you treat those living around you if they were trying to KILL you daily?

The Palestinians were given the opportunity to self rule and they elected MURDERERS that teach genocide for all Jews.

I would not be fine with Israel "cleansing" the territories. They have had plenty of opportunity to do that and have NOT. Again stupid question as history and current actions show how stupid that question is. Something could happen to tomorrow to cause them to escalate but past actions are the best predictors of future actions. Israel will try to play nice and Palestinians will lob rockets at them, same-old-same.

As to #2, sure but what can be done about that as Israel has to live with the consequences of all of those children being raised to martyr themselves killing jews. Again, what would you do if those around you raised and trained their children to strive for your eradication? Israel wants peace and wants an Israel to exist. They are open to any plan that achieves that.

As to #3, see Hamas. If they run a large enough attack against Israel and Israeli security and lives are at stake, yep. Take it back if need be. They are certainly trying to show they can't rule themselves.

Already addressed "right of return". Screw that. No state has an obligation to work toward their own destruction.

So, obviously, the solution is that if Arab's don't like living under Israeli military subjugation, they should just abandon their homeland of centuries and go move somewhere else.

That is EXACTLY what you want the Israelis to do except they won't have the option of going somewhere else there is no where else for them to go. They have no state except Israel and the Arab solution to the "jewish problem" is to just kill them all (though Egypt appears to be waking up some).

How do you know what "their current position" is?

Because their elected government broadcasts it every day, it is preached every day in every mosque by their religious leaders, and it is taught in every school in the region.

Again, you really need to broaden your news sources and get away from Kos and such if you want to have an understanding of the world as it is, not as some wish it to be.

If you're talking about Hamas, what does that have to do with the West Bank? It seems to be your thing to accuse people who disagree with you of not having "an understanding of the world as it is, not as some with it to be." Strangely, I was thinking precisely the same thing. You have a beyond cartoonish idea of Palestinian Arabs, and I imagine you have not bothered to talk with or interact with any of the ones involved in the peace movement who are also allied with a number of Israelis who want a peaceful settlement to the conflict. These people do actually exist and work every day on the problem, which is probably why they don't share your childish, simplistic assumptions. You do not know anything about the life of the average Arab in the West Bank, but you self-righteously claim to know what is preached and taught in schools every day when you actually have no idea what you are talking about.

You keep seeming to think that because Arab terrorist exist, Israel has the right to rule that land and those people for as long and in any manner they choose. Well, yeah, they have the right to administer a military occupation, but occupations engender resistance (see the US' recent folly for examples). Anyone who fails to accept military subjugation is not ipso facto an irrational hater of Jews.

"That is EXACTLY what you want the Israelis to do except they won't have the option of going somewhere else there is no where else for them to go."

Uhh, no, the Israelis already possess international borders. No state has a right to exist, but states do have the right to defend themselves, and Israel is well within its right to protect itself from any outside aggression within its borders. What Israel is NOT entitled to do is build settler colonies and administer them as outposts throughout the West Bank, while forcing military rule on the population and denying them any basic political rights. If Israel wants to rule over 2.5 million Arabs who have no say in Israeli politics, then Israel and her boosters really do need to abandon that "only democracy in the middle east" applause line.

You say to me “You have a beyond cartoonish idea of Palestinian Arabs”. If that is so, you have a naive idea of Palestinian Arabs. You present a “why can we all just get along” outlook and complain about how Palestine’s are treated in Israel and Israel controlled territories but speak nothing about how Israelis are treated EVERYWHERE else in the world. Israel treats Palatines far better than Palatines and Arabs treat Israelis. How do I know this? Israelis enter the territories as a result of territory initiated attacks on Israel and its citizens.

“You keep seeming to think that because Arab terrorist exist, Israel has the right to rule that land and those people for as long and in any manner they choose”. Yep.

You keep “picking at fleas” while ignoring the elephant in the room. Everything you complain that Israel is doing, it is doing as a DIRECT result of how they are being treated. The attacks stop and there will be peace.

“You do not know anything about the life of the average Arab in the West Bank, but you self-righteously claim to know what is preached and taught in schools every day when you actually have no idea what you are talking about.”

" You present a “why can we all just get along” outlook and complain about how Palestine’s are treated in Israel and Israel controlled territories but speak nothing about how Israelis are treated EVERYWHERE else in the world."

No, actually, I don't. I just don't buy the lame excuse the Israelis continuously peddle that because people exist who want to do them harm, they are justified in stealing land from the Palestinians. Sorry, not convinced.

"Yep."

Like I said, fine. If Israel wants to rule 2.5 million people and also deny them any political rights whatsoever, it can do that. But it has to expect that that will cause resistance and that people like you can't continue to prattle on about Israel being a democracy. It isn't a democracy in the West Bank. It's an occupying military power. And while international borders make attacks inside Israel illigitimate and illegal, the Palestinians have a right to resist an illegal occupation of their territory. Now, many of them do not exercise that right, because they would prefer not to be shot by an Israeli soldier or blown up by an Israeli tank.

"verything you complain that Israel is doing, it is doing as a DIRECT result of how they are being treated."

No, you are completely, absolutely wrong. And you keep repeating this lie in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. Israel's settlement activity has not been undertaken for security purposes. In fact, many of the settlements reduce the security of Israel proper because they are lone outposts deep in the West Bank that require Israeli military protection. Please explain to me how the Hebron settlement contributes to Israeli security.

"It is no secret if you care to look. They are not ashamed of what they are doing. I think you need to take a long look in the mirror before telling me I don’t know of which I speak…"

Nope. I am just fine with my opinions. Does the existence of extremist rabbis who preach expulsion and/or extermination of Arabs or the terrorist violence committed by Israeli radicals evidence of irrational hatred for Arabs on the parts of Jews? Does the fact that terrorist violence was used by Jews against civilians in order to help start the state of Israel decrease the legitimacy of the state of Israel? I don't happen to think it does, but you're the one who seems to think the practice of terrorism by some justified denying a state to all.

No, you are completely, absolutely wrong. And you keep repeating this lie in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. Israel's settlement activity has not been undertaken for security purposes. In fact, many of the settlements reduce the security of Israel proper because they are lone outposts deep in the West Bank that require Israeli military protection. Please explain to me how the Hebron settlement contributes to Israeli security.

4/24/15, 1:12 PM

Sorry, don't care about the settlements. Never said I did and never offered an explanation for them. I just don't care.

I do care that you seem to think that one thing justifies all of the attacks that Israel has had to endure and excuses all of the things done to Israel even though that is a relatively recent development. You also did not [apparently] have the time to review the links I attached as if you would have, I think you would (or at least hoped you would) have a more "open" outlook on the situation. Alas, that apparently is not to be.

"I do care that you seem to think that one thing justifies all of the attacks that Israel has had to endure and excuses all of the things done to Israel even though that is a relatively recent development."

The settlements were begun in 1967, they are just as "recent" as the '67 war.

"Sorry, don't care about the settlements. Never said I did and never offered an explanation for them. I just don't care."

That is why you are so incoherent when you say that all of the problems in the West Bank are due to Arab intransigence and Israeli security needs. The settlements are a major source of the conflict and a major source of Arab resentment towards Israel. The fact that you ignore them does not change this.

"Alas, that apparently is not to be."

Again, that is a straw man you have constructed that you continue to pick at. I have never denied the existence of antisemitism or the desire to commit violence against Israel in the middle east. I have said many times that that does not preclude the creation of an Arab state. I do not believe that Israelis have a right to rule over Arabs in the West Bank, and I do not believe that Arabs are required to pass ideology tests before they are allowed to a state with national self-determination. And I do not believe Israel has a right to impose an apartheid state on an unwilling population because it wants to colonize desirable pieces of West Bank land.

That is why you are so incoherent when you say that all of the problems in the West Bank are due to Arab intransigence and Israeli security needs. The settlements are a major source of the conflict and a major source of Arab resentment towards Israel. The fact that you ignore them does not change this.

I never said that and I have not ignored them. I just don't think it is as important as you do. I think ongoing rocket attacks are far more important than some settlements.

Again, that is a straw man you have constructed that you continue to pick at. I have never denied the existence of antisemitism or the desire to commit violence against Israel in the middle east. I have said many times that that does not preclude the creation of an Arab state. I do not believe that Israelis have a right to rule over Arabs in the West Bank, and I do not believe that Arabs are required to pass ideology tests before they are allowed to a state with national self-determination. And I do not believe Israel has a right to impose an apartheid state on an unwilling population because it wants to colonize desirable pieces of West Bank land.

4/24/15, 1:54 PM

There are already MANY Arab states in the ME. There is only one Israel and for many people that is one Israel too many. What price is existence worth?

Did you follow the links? THat is a brief sample. Those are not "some people". Those are the people right there that you want to have free reign to do as they will WHICH is the destruction of Israel.

"I never said that and I have not ignored them. I just don't think it is as important as you do."

Todd at 1:31pm:"Sorry, don't care about the settlements. Never said I did and never offered an explanation for them. I just don't care."

Earlier you said that only the Arab desire to murder Israelis mattered and everything else was a "smoke screen." So, are the settlements a smoke screen or are they important, but just not as important as I think?

"There are already MANY Arab states in the ME"

So what? That is pointless. The West Bank is a piece of land with 2.5 million Arabs living on it. You already said that you would not favor expulsion and ethnic cleansing. The people living there for the most part have been living there since before Zionism even existed, let alone the state of Israel. More than half of them were not born in 1967 when King Hussein decided to enter the war. You seem to believe that these people have no right to self-determination on land they have been living on for centuries, but you do believe that Israelis have the right to control the land that they began inhabiting after 1967. Considering that Israel was able to not only survive but win unconditionally against belligerents with a total population approaching 50 million, I doubt highly that the west bank with its 2.5 million inhabitants would pose anywhere near the kind of security risk you imagine, let alone result in some kind of genocide against Jews.

OK, this is circular and going no where so this is my last post. You think of Palestine as an Israel/Palestine problem and I think of it as a Isreal/ME problem. You think they should be in control of their own destiny and I know that EVERYTIME movement in that direction that has taken place, the Palestinians have used that opportunity to attack Israel. You think that just because Israel has persevered, they should capitulate. I think they are doing what they need to and with far more restraint than ANY other country would show facing a similar situation.

I shown you current examples of Palestinians advocating for the death and destruction of Israel and jews (they feed that crap to their children) and your response is "settlements".

The reason I keep coming back to the settlements and the reason you have no answer from them (aside from an admitted lack of caring) is because they are a glaring refutation to your entire premise, which is that Israeli activity in the West Bank is mainly about security and self-preservation. It isn't. It is mostly about building a settler colony all over the West Bank, in which Israeli civilians leave the internationally recognized boundaries of their country to go live under the protection of an Israeli garrison force in these various outposts. Again, I would love for you to explain how hundreds of religious fanatics living in an Israeli outpost in Hebron is necessary for Israeli security. I know, I know. You "just don't care about" that.

It is mostly about building a settler colony all over the West Bank, in which Israeli civilians leave the internationally recognized boundaries of their country to go live under the protection of an Israeli garrison force in these various outposts.

You're confusing two very distinct points.

Many Israeli citizens feel a politico-religious pull to live throughout the land of Israel, but the only reason that requires a military presence is because the simple fact of their religion invites Arab violence. If Palestinian society was civilized enough to tolerate Jews, there would be no need for all of the military elements you decry.

"If Palestinian society was civilized enough to tolerate Jews, there would be no need for all of the military elements you decry."

Jews are living there under the protection of Israeli law, beyond Israel's borders. So tens of thousands of Arabs living in Hebron should be placed under Israeli military subjugation so a few hundred Israelis can live in Hebron? You have a very strange notion of self-determination.

Jews are living there under the protection of Israeli law, beyond Israel's borders. So tens of thousands of Arabs living in Hebron should be placed under Israeli military subjugation so a few hundred Israelis can live in Hebron? You have a very strange notion of self-determination.

You keep ignoring the fact that the military presence is solely because as a society, Palestinians cannot be presumed civilized. When they evolve beyond their primitive and violent Jew hatred, all of these military inconveniences will disappear.

You cannot "win" territory in a war, defensive or otherwise. If Israel wants to control territory in which an overwhelming majority of the population is Arab and wants to assert control over the lives of those Arabs, then as a state that supports democratic values, it should extend voting rights to them. Otherwise, it's a military subjugation against an unwilling population denied basic rights to self-determination.

Second, in theory, I (and most Israelis) agree with what you wrote. Unfortunately, Palestinian society has degraded to the point where granting them voting rights would materially threaten Israel's ability to live normally. It's not Israel's obligation to pretend otherwise.

I agree with your last point. And I am generally sympathetic with the goals of Zionism. I have no problem with Israel as a Jewish state, and I support its right to be secure within internationally recognized borders. However, moving civilian populations into settlements is another affair entirely.

But even ignoring that, I would honestly like to ask you: what percentage of the Israeli population would you guess is willing to accept a divided Jerusalem?

I thought it was somewhere in the 50-50 range, but my point still stands. There are tough issues that need to be settled for a resolution of the conflict to occur. It is not, as some continually suggest. simply a matter of Arab intransigence.

@Rusty:

"If you can't see the strategic importance of Israels control of the west bank then there can be no further argument."

Except Israel does not just control land. It controls the 2.5 million people who live on that land.

There are tough issues that need to be settled for a resolution of the conflict to occur. It is not, as some continually suggest. simply a matter of Arab intransigence.

I can only offer my own opinion, which is that if (hopefully when) Arab intransigence subsides, the other issues will be resolved. Of course it will be difficult, and of course it won't be unanimous. But Israel and its leaders are mostly reasonable. That was reflected in the strong original support for the Madrid and Oslo accords.

That reasonableness is also reflected in the belief that at present, the Palestinian leadership is more interested in antagonizing and attacking Israel than in achieving better lives for its people, and it will not sacrifice the former for the sake of the latter.